Diolch Llywydd. I understood what you meant—I got it.

One of the benefits of doing a piloted roll-out, where we've moved from seven to 14 and we'll move upwards in terms of local authorities, is that we learn as we go and we evolve and we modify the scheme. But the question here is what is put on the face of primary legislation. I understand, because it's a running challenge with this, but this is a narrow technical Bill to allow HMRC to deliver the childcare offer, and the rest will be described in regulations or in the operational scheme and so on and the administrative scheme. The administrative scheme, as I've said, I've made clear I will bring in front of the committee and I will be happy to have it reviewed and to discuss and analyse it. But, look, we've been very, very clear from the start about who can provide childcare under the terms of this offer. Only registered providers can deliver this childcare offer. These providers are regulated and they're inspected—that, for us, is important as a measure of quality and standards. It provides us with the assurance that the funding used for the childcare offer is being spent on childcare that meets a number of requirements.

Now, providers who sign up to things such as voluntary approval schemes, which are very, very welcome, such as the one run for nannies by Care Inspectorate Wales—they're very useful schemes, they really are, but they're not registered, they're not inspected, and therefore they cannot deliver this offer. We have, however—to clarify—already flexed the rules, learnt from the first year of early implementer, to ensure that childminders can be funded through the offer to care for children who are also relatives. We heard from the committee, we had direct face-to-face conversations with grandparents out there who were saying, 'Well, I am actually a registered childminder, I'd like to do this.' We talked about this internally, we came in front of the committee and discussed it, and we changed what we're doing on the basis of learning live on the ground.

But we do realise that the existing legislation has some prohibitions around this arrangement in the wider context, and it's for this reason that I've already committed to reviewing that aspect of existing legislation, so that we can look at who can provide. But the benefit of pilots is that I will keep coming back to the Assembly and saying, 'We've now learnt this—do you think it's a good idea that we flex it again before the full roll-out?' Now, it's important to keep that in mind. Childminding and day care are already defined in other pieces of legislation. Replicating this within this context is unnecessary—I've said that already. It raises the risk that those definitions could actually fall out of sync in the future, resulting in confusion or having to revisit primary legislation. 

Just to be clear, as well, we really do appreciate as a Government—I do, crikey, as a parent as well who has had three children—the contribution that many grandparents make in caring for their grandchildren. But my nonno and nonna would not have been able to access this childcare offer as providers, because they weren't registered with CIW; they were not inspected. I love them dearly, and they provided brilliant childcare, but they wouldn't have been able to access the scheme and it's the right thing. So, that's where the clarity lies.

Now, I can't see what would be gained from these regulation-making powers in amendments 24 and 25, which would only, in effect, be stating and defining categories of providers already stated and defined in other legislation. So, on that basis, whilst I understand where you're coming from on this, we can't support these amendments.